San Jose, Calif., officials sued Major League Baseball in California federal court Tuesday, claiming MLB harmed it to the tune of millions of dollars by stalling on an owners' vote on moving the Oakland Athletics to their city and challenging baseball's exemption to federal antitrust laws.
The increasing number of bankruptcy and district court decisions in favor of estates demonstrates the importance of understanding the bankruptcy implications of a tax allocation agreement entered into by any consolidated tax group, especially bank-holding companies. As shown by the Southern District of California ruling in In re Imperial Capital Bancorp Inc., the TAA terms could affect a significant estate asset: tax refunds, says Matthew Riopelle of Foley & Lardner LLP.
In Whyte v. Barclays Bank PLC, the Southern District of New York recently dismissed the complaint of the trustee for the SemGroup estate seeking to avoid a novation made to Barclays pre-bankruptcy under a swap agreement. This is one of a number of cases in recent years that treats the safe harbors — particularly the section 546 safe harbors — as broadly protective of nondebtor transferees in financial transactions, say Jonathan Guy and Douglas Mintz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
The U.S. Supreme Court's June 17 decision in Maracich v. Spears will be significant for lawyers who use motor vehicle records in investigating their cases. It also offers some insights into the justices’ approaches to statutory interpretation and their views on large damages awards, says Eric Miller of Perkins Coie LLP.
In addition to providing clear guidance for designing nondiscriminatory wellness programs, recent insight from the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services may also bring more outcome-based programs and new plan designs that shift costs to employees who do not participate, says Priscilla Ryan of Sidley Austin LLP.
In the unanimous opinion of Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that California raisin handlers could assert a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action filed by the United States. The decision is noteworthy as it potentially represents a crack in prior Supreme Court precedent through which a swarm of regulatory takings claims may flood, say attorneys with Nossaman LLP.
In light of the long-awaited hydraulic fracturing legislation now signed by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, supporters of high-volume horizontal fracking who see the potential for enormous economic benefits are looking eagerly ahead to when permitted drilling operations can begin in the New Albany Shale reserve. But, even with enactment of the fracking legislation into law, significant challenges still lie ahead, say attorneys with Quarles & Brady LLP.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's two recent “natural” labeling cases, one involving food and the other cosmetics, illustrate how tricky — even counterintuitive — application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine can be. The rulings in Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group and Janney v. General Mills will comfort defendants of cosmetic products but disappoint those of food products, say attorneys with Tucker Ellis LLP.
As the 2013 proxy season kicked off, there was a great deal of speculation among public companies, their counsel and commentators over whether say-on-pay challenges would continue. But attempts to refashion Dodd-Frank’s say-on-pay requirements into an annual litigation phenomenon appear to have waned, says Nicholas Even of Haynes and Boone LLP.
At oral argument in Bunk v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, a Fourth Circuit panel focused on what number should be analyzed to evaluate the constitutionality of a fine under the False Claims Act and what is the right remedy if a court determines that a fine is constitutionally excessive. The decision will have the potential to greatly affect the amount that FCA defendants who successfully raise constitutional objections will have to pay, say attorneys with Ropes & Gray LLP.
What should be at the forefront of the mind of any in-house counsel or compliance officer whose company operates in joint ventures is section 7 of the U.K. Bribery Act, which holds that an organization does not even need to be aware of corrupt conduct in order to be guilty of an offense, say attorneys with Dechert LLP.